RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
His well-founded concern about UFOs has a more prosaic explanation.
His well-founded concern about UFOs has a more prosaic explanation.
This thread is about critical thinking in UFOlogy right? So then let’s examine AstroP’s statement with a critical eye for evidence of critical thinking.
AstroP may be right in that the story is not in the public domain so that public searches will not reveal much in the way of corroboration. The story is obviously anecdotal so he may also be right in that it may not be 100% accurate. So far so good, nothing contentious there. The pilot (to his knowledge), never came forward – not unusual in such cases. All very reasonable so far. So what are AstroP’s conclusion based on all of that reasonableness?
“ As a result, we can send this story to the "So what" bin.”
One is compelled to ask on what basis? Ruppelt (a person whom we may respect as having integrity in that he would not deliberately mislead) relates an anecdotal account of a military UFO encounter. …and all AStroP concludes is “so what”? But of course that is a subjective matter of his own personal opinion. It is not a critically thought out response based on logic or evidence or on his preceding statements.
Then we have:
“It has just as much value as any other anecdotal story.”
So on what does he base that conclusion? It is in fact merely an unfounded assertion. It asserts that all anecdotes have the same (low) value. So where is the evidence for that assertion? There is nothing in his prior statements that provide that evidence. Surely the mere statement of such unfounded assertions does not somehow magically confer veracity on them?
It seems there is a con trick being pulled on the reader here. AstroP starts off with some reasonable statements of uncontentious general knowledge about the case – then pretends that is the basis for his conclusions with “As a result…”.
Clearly his conclusions are not “as a result” of his preceding statements at all! They are merely standalone unfounded assertions that bear no relation at all to his preceding statements!
In critical thinking we must always be on the alert for such con jobs. A person makes what seems to be a series of reasonable statements, lulling the reader into a false sense of security, then drops in a few unrelated “conclusions” - which are in fact mere opinionated and unfounded assertion bearing no relationship to the previous statements whatsoever. The “con” is that linking statement that indicates a valid conclusion – that seemingly innocuous “As a result…”.
Last edited:
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
OK, considering at least some of you are onboard with this approach, do any of you have any contentions to make about the abovementioned criteria or their importance in the pursuit of critical analysis?
If not, let's discuss how they relate to the general critical thinking approach.
(Let's not start relating them to UFOs specifically yet; first we want to come to a general agreement about how to proceed.)
Last edited:
Here is another favourite con trick of the UFO debunkers. Everyone knows (including the debunkers) that they believe that UFO reports arise principally from misidentifications of mundane objects. UFOs to them are simply misidentified mundane objects. That is their belief.
However, when a UFO proponent comes along and states there is evidence for UFOs and that UFOs are real (meaning of course that they are not merely misidentified mundane objects), the debunker springs his con trick – pretending that he does not believe in the misidentified mundane object explanation at all – rather that the “U” in UFO merely means “unidentified” - and of course unidentified flying objects abound – so the claim that “UFOs are real” is not significant at all.
This has the affect of forcing the UFO proponent into using alternate terminology (such as “genuine UFO”) but of course this is unwieldy and leads to confusions of its own – which is of course the debunkers intention from the very beginning.
It is much better to simply call the debunker out on the con trick and be done with it. The application of a little critical thinking can often work wonders! LOL.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
This is a very defensive posture to adopt every time critical thinking is mentioned.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
1 Argumentum ad hominem
2 Argumentum ad populum
3 Hasty generalization
4 Straw man
5 Either-or
6 Appeal to ridicule
7 Internet trollspeak
Wow. That is impressive!
Rramjet, I'm placing you on ignore from here on out because you seem to be far more interested in bickering than approaching this conversation from a reasoned perspective, or indeed making any kind of rational sense at all.
Kthxbye!
Last edited:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Hey John ...
Critical thinking was defined at the start of this thread with a reference to the The Foundation for Critical Thinking. I also provided some clarification as to the intent of this thread and how it differs from the research and evidence thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7363725&postcount=1
In addition to the above, in preparing this thread, I reviewed several other definitions and arrived at a general interpretation for this thread that is suitable for its context. So although a discussion of the definition is fine, I will resist any attempt at a redefinition that derails the thread by moving the goal posts.
j.r.
Last edited:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
At last a real starting point. Elegant ... simple ... to the point. Nicely done SC.
The next step is of course to define them and try to figure out what is reasonable to believe about them. Since the USAF created the term, here is the official USAF definition:
========================
2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:
- Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).
- Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.
(2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.
- Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.
The official USAF definitions above clearly show that for a sighting report to be considered an "Unknown" there must have been a reasonable amount of data to exclude any known manmade or natural phenomena, including unknown aircraft and objects with characteristics that merely suggest they could be aircraft.
j.r.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
The Joker card makes an interesting analogy. In some games it can serve as any card and turn out to be very valuable. However in the Tarot deck its counterpart is The Fool ... this quote is particularly noteworthy:
"So filled with visions, questions, wonder and excitement is he, that he doesn't see the cliff he is likely to fall over. At his heel a small dog harries him (or tries to warn him of a possible mis-step). Will the Fool learn to pay attention to where he's going before it's too late?"
In ufology it's not as simple as either the believers or the skeptics would like it to be. In between are the genuine ufologists who are constantly torn between the two. I often find myself attacked from both sides.
j.r.
Last edited:
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
I don't take any particular exception to the The Foundation for Critical Thinking or its pursuits, but the page you linked actually contains several vague definitions, none of which is specific enough to be of practical use in a discussion such as this.
I'm curious as to why you chose to lock onto that particularly vague introductory definition and not one of the many others that can be found all over the Internet, for example the one in the good-old standby, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Even Wikipedia admits that the definition of critical thinking is often contested, so I see no reason why discussing its definition should be discouraged in this thread.
Considering the title, "Critical Thinking In Ufology," I'd say a discussion by members of this community specifically dedicated to the promotion of critical thinking, on what defines critical thinking, is entirely appropriate.
As for your accusation of "moving the goalposts," that's not my intention.
I openly acknowledged that we're getting nowhere with all the pointless quarreling, and proposed that agreeing on some sensible definitions might make things proceed more smoothly. This discussion is nominally about "Critical Thinking In Ufology," but so far this has turned out to be just another place to bicker and grouse over all the same old anecdotes and arguments that have gone on for 223 pages and counting in the "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" thread, but without moderation to weed out the personal attacks and red herring derailments.
So, go ahead and "resist," if you feel that's appropriate (I have to wonder what you'd possibly have to fear by the proposition of actual critical thinking going on), but I'm determined to continue discussing this topic according to the approach advertised in the thread title.
Last edited:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Hey John I'm fine with what you're saying. It's a very positive move. Allow me to clarify that I'm not being accusatory about moving the goal posts or trying to discourage discussion, just cautionary. I've already seen some comments here that suggest critical thinking must include irrefuatable proof, moving it away toward veiled versions of the scientific method and other arbitrary notions of "proof". Doing so would derail the thread. In a nutshell, what we're trying to do is allow us to look at ufology in the spirit of advancing the truth by any means at our disposal, including, but not limited to hard science. As quoted at the start:
"Rather it is a method to help establish the truth, or at least determine what is most likely to be the truth given the information at hand, and it can make use of anything that advances that effort."
how does the above sit with you?
j.r.
BTW: There is an interactive illustration from the FCT here:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfm
It's useful to reflect on, but I'm not entirely sure how to apply it to our discussion here. Stray Cat recently made a most excellent post that has great potential to get us shoved off in the right direction ... my response is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370077&postcount=293
Last edited:
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
Well I agree with him. There's no denying UFOs exist. People sometimes see things in the sky and don't know what they are. That much we know for a fact.
But the first question I would ask is, are there reasonable explanations for these sighting that don't require the presumption of aliens, interdimensional travel, or other "paranormal" conditions?
Thinking critically, I start on the presumption that the answer to that question is "no," because a big part of critical thinking (a logical guideline often referred to as "Occam's Razor") means eliminating presumptions which haven't been conclusively proven or which there exists no conclusive evidence to support. In the absence of conclusive proof of aliens, positing them as an explanation for an unidentified flying object would run contrary to one of the basic premises of critical thinking, so we're left with a huge number of non-paranormal possibilities for our investigation to pursue.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, anecdotal evidence is useless in proving the existence of phenomena which haven't already been proven to exist by more reliable means, ie. material evidence.
But the first question I would ask is, are there reasonable explanations for these sighting that don't require the presumption of aliens, interdimensional travel, or other "paranormal" conditions?
Thinking critically, I start on the presumption that the answer to that question is "no," because a big part of critical thinking (a logical guideline often referred to as "Occam's Razor") means eliminating presumptions which haven't been conclusively proven or which there exists no conclusive evidence to support. In the absence of conclusive proof of aliens, positing them as an explanation for an unidentified flying object would run contrary to one of the basic premises of critical thinking, so we're left with a huge number of non-paranormal possibilities for our investigation to pursue.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, anecdotal evidence is useless in proving the existence of phenomena which haven't already been proven to exist by more reliable means, ie. material evidence.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Pointing out that everyone believes in UFOs is a favourite con trick of the non-existent group of people who don't believe in UFOs?
It's sad that you need to pretend that this makes sense to you. Do you also pretend that MIB is a documentary?
None of this is true, Rramjet. Not a single straw word of it has anything to do with the reality of the situation. Why do you persevere with this dishonest and intellectually bankrupt line of pseudoreasoning?
When someone misidentifies a bird as an aeroplane they don't say "OMG a UFO", they say "oh, there's an aeroplane". (if they bothered to say anything at all)
UFO 'reports' arise from people seeing something in the sky and saying "I have no idea what that is."
UFO debunkers, Rramjet, would be people who deny that the second situation ever arises, and quite clearly there are none of those amongst your opponents in this forum. It's to be hoped that nobody anywhere would assert that people are able to identify every flying object that they see.
Why can't you at least be honest enough to at least refer to your opponents as belonging to some group that actually exists, like 'flying saucer debunkers' or 'ET deniers'?
At least you'd be rid of one of the more obvious and boringly repetitive aspects of your pseudoscepticism.
Pretending that the U in UFO stands for 'unidentifed' is a con trick???
Are you for real? Or is it just that your ridiculously convoluted run-on sentence and personalised definitions lend themselves to a reader not having a clue what you're talking about?
It does no such thing. What it does do is force flying saucerers into making up new definitions for words so they can pretend that they're not doing pseudoscience.
And it's worked so well for you hasn't it? Why don't you tell us about how your credibilty has absolutely soared since you started doing this?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Using Tarot to explain that ufology is steeped in critical thinking?
Yeah, that'll work.
Pretty much because you're trying to portray yourself as a champion of both groups while cherry picking bits and pieces from the tenets of each side to further an agenda entirely of your own.
There's a difference between trying to mediate peace and standing in no-man's land, firing in both directions.
Guess which one you appear to be doing.
I think we can do better - don't you? I have posted a section from the following article already, but it seems a larger section may be required:
Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul
{presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987}.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.
Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’’s own, or one's groups’’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.
Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on , among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor. (http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm)
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul
{presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987}.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.
Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’’s own, or one's groups’’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.
Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on , among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor. (http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm)
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Only for certain values of 'we'. Rramjet hasn't got his head around this idea yet.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Because spamming large slabs of text from other sites is so much more efficient that creating your own Walls o' Waffle™ from scratch.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
You were doing great up to the point where I trailed off on your response. ( BTW Do we know stray cat is a "He" ? ). Anyway, positing alien craft as an explanation is in no way contrary to the basic premise of critical thinking unless you simply jump to that explanation first. Otherwise it could be a perfectly valid hypothesis ( generic ).
If you review the USAF definition of a UFO, you can see that most of the explanations for an unidentified object must be ruled out before it is classified as a UFO ... The USAF people weren't so stupid as to simply assume every sighting was an alien craft.
In other words, contrary to common belief, a UFO is not simply an "unidentified object". It is an object that cannot be identified as a whole host manmade and natural phenomena. Official USAF definition in this post here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7370077&postcount=293
So if we go with the official definition above, then UFO reports consisted of sightings of objects that were not:
- Familiar or Known Objects ( stars, planets, meteors etc. )
- Unknown Aircraft
- Indications of aircraft ( anything that might be an aircraft )
- Pilotless craft like missiles or rockets
- Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missile or any of the above.
So after a serious and significant effort has been performed to rule out every possible natural or manmade explanation ( and by the way this also includes misidentifications, hallucianations, hoaxes, and sightings with insufficient information ). At this point it is perfectly reasonable to propose that the phenomnon could represent an alien craft. We don't know that for certain ... but if as you suggest, we apply Occam's Razor as it was meant to be applied, since all other options have been ruled out by investigation, then the most logical and plausible explanation that remains at this point is the ETH.
NOTE: Above not to be confused with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's, "We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.", although it too makes a certain amount of sense and is essentially a colorful illustration of Occam's Razor in action.
So at this stage we are dealing with a substantial number of reports for which it isn't reasonable to simply ignore, and yet for which we have no hard data ( equivalent to actual moon mission evidence for example ).
What I'd like to see on this thread is the kind of reasoning above applied to new sightings where we have people claim we have some kind of "proof" Stray Cat posted up a good example from some scandinavian country in earlier posts that was touted as video "proof", along with a corresponding video done with CGFX. That is a really good application of critical thinking in action.
As for the unknowns and the number of people who claim to have seen alien craft, including myself, I'd like to explore the various options about what these things might be and what they are doing here. Yes ... this will involve conjecture ... it won't "prove" anything, but it might still prove to be interesting, and maybe even useful in some way that isn't immediately apparent.
j.r.
Last edited: